Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hcrj20

Qualities of Work Environments That Promote

Perceived Support for Creativity

Daniel Stokols, Chip Clitheroe & Mary Zmuidzinas

To cite this article: Daniel Stokols, Chip Clitheroe & Mary Zmuidzinas (2002) Qualities of Work
Environments That Promote Perceived Support for Creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 14:2,
137-147, DOI: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_1

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_1

Published online: 08 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1000

View related articles

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20
Creativity Research Journal
2002, Vol. 14, No. 2, 137–147
Qualities of Work Environments That Promote Perceived Support for Creativity
Daniel Stokols, Chip Clitheroe, and Mary Zmuidzinas
University of California, Irvine
ABSTRACT: This article examines physical and
social predictors of perceived support for creativity
in the workplace and their effects on important per-
sonal and organizational outcomes. Recent concep-
tualizations of creativity suggest that the physical
environment plays a key role in facilitating the devel-
opment of creative processes and products, yet prior
studies have given little attention to demonstrating
empirical links between physical and social features
of the workplace and employees’ subjective experi-
ences of creativity. This study examined employees’
perceptions of support for creativity at work as a
possible mediator of the relationships between
objective measures of distracting stimuli and subjec-
tive appraisals of social climate, on the one hand,
and self-reported levels of job satisfaction and per-
sonal stress, on the other. Results indicated that both
recorded levels of environmental distraction and
self-reports of social climate are significantly linked
to employees’ perceptions of support for creativity at
work. Moreover, employees’ appraisals of support
for creativity at work mediate the relationships
between their perceptions of social climate and self-
reported job satisfaction, social climate and stress,
and between environmental distraction and job
satisfaction.
For this article we examined both physical and social
environmental predictors of perceived support for cre-
ativity in the workplace and their effect on important
personal and organizational outcomes. Earlier
research has conceptualized creativity as a personal
disposition or trait (e.g., Barron & Harrington, 1981;
Guilford, 1959; Maslow, 1959), as an intellectual or
artistic product that is judged by observers to be both
novel and useful (e.g., Albert, 1983; Eysenck, 1994;
Ford, 1996; Glynn, 1996; Rogers, 1959), or as a
Creativity Research Journal
Copyright 2002 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
dynamic process involving individuals’ transactions
with their social environment (Amabile, 1983; Lass-
well, 1959; Mead, 1959; Mumford & Gustafson,
1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Recent conceptual-
izations of creativity have suggested that the physical
environment plays an important role in facilitating the
development of creative processes and products
(Amabile, 1988), but little empirical attention has
been given to the ways the physical environment
affects individuals’ perceptions and experiences of
creativity. An exception to this trend is a study by
Clitheroe (2000), in which architects evaluated the
ways the physical and social features of their work
environments influenced their capacity to produce
creative architectural designs.
Through this research we extended earlier studies
of creativity by examining the links between physical
and social qualities of work environments and
employees’ perceptions of the extent to which their
own creativity is supported by the workplace. More-
over, we explored the relationships between workers’
experiences of support for creativity at work and their
overall job satisfaction and well-being. Specifically,
workers’ perception of support for creativity at work
was viewed as a possible mediator of the relationships
between objectively measured levels of distracting
stimuli and subjective appraisals of social climate, and
This article is based on a paper presented at the Symposium on Con-
ceptions of Environments, XXVI International Congress of Psy-
chology, Montreal, Canada, August 16–21, 1996. The authors thank
Tommy Garling, Gary Evans, and Mark Runco for their helpful
comments on an earlier version of the paper. Funding for the
reported study was provided by the Focused Research Program on
Work Environments at the University of California, Irvine.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to
Daniel Stokols, School of Social Ecology, 206-C SE I Building, Uni-
versity of California, Irvine, CA 92697. E-mail: dstokols@uci.edu.
137
D. Stokols, C. Clitheroe, and M. Zmuidzinas
self-reported outcome measures pertaining to job sat-
isfaction and personal stress.
It is important to distinguish the aims of this
research from those of earlier studies that assessed the
effects of supportive supervisory and social climates
on employees’ creative performance at work. In those
studies, creative performance was measured either by
workers’ self-reports of their innovative contributions
on the job (Bunce & West, 1995) or through supervi-
sory ratings of employee creativity (Oldham & Cum-
mings, 1996). Because of our interest in the relation-
ships between perceived support for creativity at work
and employee well-being, we focused on workers’
subjective experience of creativity at work, rather than
on their self-reports or others’ ratings of their job per-
formance. Also, whereas many studies of creativity
and innovation have examined personality traits as
predictors of creative job performance (cf. Bunce &
West, 1995; West & Farr, 1990), we chose to focus
instead on other issues that have been given relatively
less attention in prior research—namely, the links
among physical and social environmental features of
the workplace, employees’ subjective experiences of
creativity, and their self-reported levels of job satis-
faction and stress.
Our conceptualization of the links among work
environments, employees’ perceptions of support for
creativity, and their overall well-being was based on
two key assumptions. First, we assumed that the phys-
ical and social features of work environments influ-
ence employees’ job satisfaction and well-being
(Levi, 1992; Moos, 1986; Stokols, 1992). Earlier stud-
ies have documented the distracting, stress-inducing
qualities of unpredictable or uncontrollable physical
stimuli and events such as noise or prolonged expo-
sure to crowded environments (Cohen, Evans,
Stokols, & Krantz 1986; Glass & Singer, 1972; Sher-
rod, 1974). Others have demonstrated the influence of
social climate and social support on individuals’ phys-
ical and emotional well-being across a variety of set-
tings (Berkman & Syme, 1979; Cohen & Syme, 1985;
Holahan & Moos, 1990; Moos, 1979). To our knowl-
edge, no earlier studies have examined the influence
of physical features of work environments on employ-
ees’ well-being and job satisfaction, as mediated by
their perceptions of support for creativity at work. A
recent study by Runco (1995), however, did examine
the relationship between the job satisfaction of artists
employed by a large organization and their appraisals
138
of the Climate for Creative Productivity (CCPI) at
work and found a significant positive relationship
between the CCPI index (cf. Witt & Boerkem, 1989)
and job satisfaction levels.
Second, we hypothesized that environmental dis-
tractions and poor social climate at work can restrict
employees’ experiences of creativity by interfering
with their concentration on job-related tasks or by
heightening feelings of unpredictability and uncon-
trollability, thereby fostering the belief that the work-
place does not support their efforts to be creative.
Employees’ perception that the work environment dis-
courages creativity, in turn, was expected to increase
their vulnerability to job dissatisfaction and stress.
These hypothesized links among the major predictor,
mediator, and outcome variables in this study are
shown in Figure 1.
Methods
Participants
A total of 97 full-time supervisory and staff-level
employees participated in this study. These individuals
participated in a study of workers’ subjective experi-
ences of creativity at work, as part of the University of
California (UCI) Facilities Survey conducted during
1986 and 1987. The survey examined the reactions of
campus-based and nonuniversity workers to relocations
and renovations of their offices. More than 250 individ-
uals participated in the survey. A subset of 97 respon-
dents, drawn from four campus-based departments and
one nonuniversity company, was identified for inclusion
in the analyses. These individuals completed a creativity
questionnaire that was administered only once, during
the third and final phase of the study. Those individuals
who participated only during the first or second phase of
the survey, thus, were, not eligible for inclusion in this
analyses of workers’ creativity experiences.
The 97 participants included 21% men and 79%
women. Of these, 34% were nonsupervisory support
staff, 36% were supervisory support staff or entry-level
professional staff, and 30% were supervisory profes-
sional staff. Approximately 85% of the participants
were White and 15% non-White. Approximately 74%
of the participants were drawn from the four adminis-
trative units at UCI, and 26% were employed by a local
private environmental and transportation planning firm.
Creativity Research Journal

Figure 1. Effects of social climate and environmental distraction on job satisfaction and stress mediated by perceived support for cre-
ativity at work.
Procedures
Questionnaires assessing employees’ perceptions
of support for creativity, job satisfaction, personal
stress, and their ratings of physical and social features
of the workplace were administered during regular
work hours. Objective recordings of environmental
conditions were gathered at each of the participating
worksites by the research team. These measures
included the physical dimensions of each participant’s
work area (e.g., square footage and levels of enclo-
sure), onsite observations of pedestrian traffic and
noise sources adjacent to each employee’s work area,
and diagrams summarizing the visual exposure of
each employee’s immediate work area to other indi-
viduals. Recordings of employees’ blood pressure and
heart rate also were gathered by the research team.
Surveys were administered at three times to work
groups that experienced extensive office renovations or
reloactions, and comparison groups that experienced
neither. Questionnaires included categorical and contin-
uous scaled responses, as well as open-ended items.
Detailed descriptions of all questionnaires included in
the facilities survey are provided in earlier reports focus-
ing on the links between job conditions and health rather
than on the creativity-related findings reported here for
the 97 participants who completed the Creativity Ques-
tionnaire at Time 3 (cf. Stokols, Churchman, Scharf, &
Wright, 1990; Stokols & Scharf, 1990). Objective mea-
sures of physical and social conditions in the workplace
were recorded by the research team at the same time as
questionnaires were administered to employees. Partici-
Creativity Research Journal
Qualities of Work Environments
pation in the facilities survey was voluntary, and confi-
dentiality was maintained throughout the project.
Measures and Analyses
The major hypotheses of the study were assessed
through a series of regression analyses in which
covariates were entered at Step 1 and the predictor
variables or mediator variables were entered at Step 2.
Outcome variables included two self-report measures
described as follows.
Covariates. The following covariates (included
in the study’s Demographic Information Question-
naire) were entered at Step 1 of all regression analyses
to control for individual differences on these dimen-
sions: age, education, and job status. The job status
variable was produced by combining two categorical
variables: job level (support or professional) and
responsibilities (supervisory or nonsupervisory), to
form a three-level ordinal variable: (a) nonsupervisory
support staff (lowest), (b) supervisory support staff
and nonsupervisory professional staff (middle), and
(c) supervisory professional staff (highest).
An additional covariate, personal importance of
creativity, was entered in the regression analyses after
age, education, and job status, to control for differ-
ences among workers in the importance they assigned
to being creative, and for the effects of those differ-
ences on the outcome measures. This covariate was
139
D. Stokols, C. Clitheroe, and M. Zmuidzinas
formed by averaging two 7-point Likert items pertain-
ing to the importance of being creative at work and at
home (included in the values and experiences associ-
ated with Creativity Questionnaire). The two mea-
sures were combined into a single scale to provide a
general index of perceived importance of creativity
across multiple life domains (i.e., home and work)
because we assumed that individuals manifest this dis-
positional tendency across both domains.
Predictor Variables. It was hypothesized that
employees’ subjective appraisals of social climate at
work, as well as objective measures of environmental
distraction in the workplace, would predict levels of
job satisfaction and stress reported by the participants.
A subjective measure of social climate at work was
derived from eight 4-point Likert-scale items included
in the study’s checklist of work-related experiences.
Individual items probed positive or negative feelings
about assigned tasks, physical health symptoms asso-
ciated with these tasks and the use of certain equip-
ment, and supportive or nonsupportive communication
among employees and supervisors. The eight items
pertaining to the quality of employees’ social relations
with their coworkers and supervisors were averaged to
yield a summary measure of social climate.
An objective index of environmental distraction at
work was derived from onsite recordings of environ-
mental conditions including levels of noise and foot
traffic within (and adjacent to) each employee’s work
station; and the visual exposure (or privacy) of the
work station. Ambient noise levels were computed as
the mean of all high-decibel readings recorded in and
adjacent to an employee’s work area over a 5-min
interval.1 The number of people seen walking through
1
Noise recordings were obtained in two ways. First, measurements
were taken with a Simpson 886 hand-held sound-level meter that
records noise amplitude for one moment at a particular location.
These recordings were taken over a 5-min interval at each
employee’s work station. For each measurement period, the high,
low, and average sound levels were calculated. Specific noise
sources such as printers without hoods, collating machines, and
photocopiers also were monitored. Second, a noise level analyzer
(Bruel and Kjaer Type 4426) was used to assess noise levels within
an office over a 4-hr period. This method provided information
about average daily noise exposures for employees working in par-
ticular areas of an office. The principal source of noise data for the
analyses reported in this article were the sound-level measures
obtained using the hand-held dosimeter.
140
or near that person’s work area during the noise-
measurement period was recorded by members of the
research team and used as an index of pedestrian traf-
fic. Visual exposure levels at each work station also
were assessed in terms of the number of coworkers
who, from their own work stations, could potentially
see an employee seated at his or her desk. Standard-
ized scores for visual exposure, noise level, and foot
traffic were combined to form the overall index of
environmental distraction.
Outcome Variables. The checklist of work-
related experiences included nine 5-point Likert items
that probed employees’ levels of emotional stress dur-
ing the month preceding their completion of the ques-
tionnaire (cf. Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983).
These items, 1 (never) and 5 (very often) were aver-
aged to yield an overall self-report index of personal
stress. An additional item, “How satisfied are you with
your current job?” was used as an index of job satis-
faction, 1 (not at all satisfied) and 5 (very satisfied).
Mediator Variable. It was hypothesized that
employees’ perception of support for creativity at
work would mediate the relationships between the
predictor and outcome variables. An index of per-
ceived support for creativity at work was formed by
averaging three 7-point Likert scales pertaining to
the availability of creative outlets at work, 1 (not at
all available) and 7 (very available), how often
respondents felt creative at work, 1 (never) and
7 (very often), and the extent to which their work
environment encouraged or discouraged their cre-
ativity, 1 (strongly discouraged) and 7 (strongly
encouraged).
Data Analyses
Research questions were assessed using the multi-
ple regression procedures of the SPSSX-PC computer
program. Data analyses followed procedures to test
for mediating relationships described by Baron and
Kenny (1986). This method calls for a series of three
regression analyses.
The first analysis regresses a mediator (perceived
support for creativity at work) on an independent
Creativity Research Journal
 Qualities of Work Environments

variable (social climate or environmental distraction).
Mediation criteria require that the independent vari-
ables significantly affect the mediator. The second
analysis regresses the dependent variables (personal
stress or job satisfaction) on the independent vari-
ables (social climate or environmental distraction).
Mediation criteria require that independent variables
significantly affect dependent variables. The third
analysis regresses the dependent variables (personal
stress or job satisfaction) on both the independent
variables (social climate or environmental distrac-
tion) and the mediator variable (perceived support for
creativity at work). Mediation criteria require that
(a) the mediator variable significantly affects the
dependent variable, and (b) the effect of the inde-
pendent variable on the dependent variable is reduced
in the third analysis, as compared with its effect on
the dependent variable in the second analysis (where
the mediator variable has not been entered into the
regression equation).
The mediation analyses were performed separately
for each pair of independent and dependent variables.
In all of these analyses, the covariates—age, educa-
tion, job status, and personal importance of creativ-
ity—were entered in the regression equations before
the predictor and mediating variables.
Results
Internal Consistency of Scaled Variables
As a check on the internal consistency of the scaled
variables analyzed in this study, Cronbach’s alpha was
computed for all multi-item scales. A summary of the
major scales and their interitem reliabilities is pro-
vided in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coeffi-
cients were as follows: perceived support for creativ-
ity at work = .84; importance of creativity = .71; social
climate = .71; and personal stress = .88.

Table 1. Summary of Major Variables and Interitem Reliability Data

Scale Description Scale Items α

Perceived Support for
Creativity at Work
Importance of Creativity
Social Climate
Environmental Distraction
Personal Stress
Job Satisfaction
a
Designated items are reverse scored.
How available to you are creative outlets at work? .84
How often do you feel creative at work?
To what extent is your creativity encouraged or discouraged at work?
How important is it for you to be creative at work? .71
How important is it for you to be creative at home?
Open exchange of ideas with my supervisor .71
Supportive interactions with coworkers
High employee morale
Participate in decisions about projects I work on
Participate in decisions that affect my work environment
Conflict with coworkers on project prioritiesa
Insufficient guidance from supervisora
Difficulties in contacting supervisora
Sum of people viewed while seated, number of people who can see while seated, foot traffic, N/A
and noise levels
Unable to control the important things in your lifea .88
Confident about ability to handle personal problems
Things were going your way
Difficulties piling up so high you can’t overcome thema
You could not cope with all the things you had to doa
You were on top of things
Nervous and stresseda
Downhearted and bluea
Satisfied with life
How satisfied are you with your current job? N/A

Creativity Research Journal 141

D. Stokols, C. Clitheroe, and M. Zmuidzinas

Mediation of Environmental Effects on Job Table 2. Effect of Social Climate on Perceived Support
Satisfaction and Personal Stress × for Creativity at Worka
Employees’ Perception of Support for Variable B on Entry Se B R2 Change p
Creativity at Work
Age –.06 .13 .55
Education –.19 .19 .08
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, both independent Job Status .24 .20 .03
variables (social climate and environmental distrac- Importance .31 .34 .005
tion) meet the first criterion identified by Baron and of Creativity
Kenny (1986) for mediation analyses (i.e., they sig- Social Climate .36 .30 .13 .0003
nificantly affect the mediator variable). After Note: Final equation adjusted R2 = .27, F(5,76) = 7.28, p = .0000.
accounting for the effects of the covariates, the stan- a
This equation constitutes the first analysis in Baron & Kenny’s
dardized regression coefficients indicate that both (1986) test for statistical mediation. The first criterion of media-
variables significantly predict perceived support for tion is met, in that the predictor variable, social climate, signifi-
cantly affects the mediator variable, perceived support for cre-
creativity at work. A more positive social climate
ativity at work.
was associated with greater perceived support for
creativity at work (β = .36, R 2 change = .13,
Table 3. Effect of Environmental Distraction on Perceived
p < .0003). Higher levels of environmental distrac- Support for Creativity at Worka
tion at work were associated with less perceived
support for creativity (β = –.35, R2 change = .11, Variable B on Entry Se B R2 Change p
p < .004). Age –.03 .15 .78
In the analyses incorporating personal stress as Education –.09 .21 .45
the dependent variable, the criteria for statistical Job Status .15 .23 .22
mediation were met only when social climate was Importance .23 .38 .06
of Creativity
entered as the independent variable (but not with Environmental –.35 .02 .11 .004
environmental distraction as the independent vari- Distraction
able). As shown in Table 4, the second mediational
analysis indicated that a more positive social climate Note: Final equation adjusted R2 = .15, F(5,67) = 3.46, p = .0076.
a
This equation constitutes the first analysis in Baron & Kenny’s (1986)
was associated with lower levels of personal stress test for statistical mediation. The first criterion of mediation is met, in
(β = .26, R2 change = .07, p < .02). In the third medi- that the predictor variable, environmental distraction, significantly
ation analysis, perceived support for creativity at affects the mediator variable, perceived support for creativity at work.
work (the mediator) was a statistically significant
predictor of personal stress (β = .39, R2 change = .12, Table 4. Effect of Social Climate on Personal Stress as Mediated
p < .002). Perceived support for creativity was nega- by Perceived Support for Creativity at Work
tively associated with personal stress. (The beta Variable B on Entry Se B R2 Change p
coefficient was positive because higher scores on the
Mediation Analysis 2
personal stress scale indicate lower levels of stress). Age .15 .07 .23
In addition, the effect of the independent variable, Education .01 .10 .94
social climate, on personal stress was less in the third Job Status .01 .11 .93
mediation analysis (β = .13) than in the second Importance
analysis (β = .26). In fact, the effect of social climate of Creativity –.09 .18 .47
Social Climate .26 .18 .07 .02
on personal stress was no longer statistically signifi- Mediation Analysis 3
cant in the third analysis. Perceived Support for
In the analyses incorporating job satisfaction as Creativity at Work .39 .06 .12 .002
the dependent variable, the criteria for statistical Social Climate .13 .19 .01 .29
mediation were met when either social climate or Note: Analysis 2 final equation adjusted R2 = .04, F(5,71) = 1.69,
environmental distraction was entered as the inde- p = .1470. Analysis 3 final equation adjusted R2 = .10, F(6,70) =
pendent variable. As shown in Table 5, the second 2.45, p = .0328.

142 Creativity Research Journal

 Qualities of Work Environments

mediation analysis indicated that a more positive
social climate was associated with greater job satis-
faction (β = .52, R2 change = .27, p < .0000). In the
third mediation analysis, perceived support for cre-
ativity at work (the mediator) was a statistically sig-
nificant predictor of job satisfaction. Perceived sup-
port for creativity was positively associated with job
satisfaction (β = 46, R2 change = .19, p < .0001). In
addition, the effect of the independent variable,
social climate, was less in the third mediation analy-
sis (β = .42) than in the second analysis (β = .52).
The effect of social climate on job satisfaction, how-
ever, remained statistically significant in the third
analysis.
As shown in Table 6, the second mediation analy-
sis indicated that higher levels of environmental dis-
traction were associated with lower levels of job sat-
isfaction (β = –28, R2 change = .07, p < .0246). In
the third mediation analysis, perceived support for
creativity at work (the mediator) was a statistically
significant predictor of job satisfaction. Perceived
support for creativity was positively associated with
job satisfaction (β = .44, R2 change = .17, p <
.0002). Moreover, the effect of environmental dis-
traction on job satisfaction decreased in the third
mediation analysis (β = –.15) as compared with its
effect on the dependent variable in the second analy-
sis (β = –.28) and was no longer significant in the
third analysis.
The previously noted main effects of social cli-
mate, environmental distraction, and perceived sup-
port for creativity at work on job satisfaction and

Table 5. Effect of Social Climate on Job Satisfaction as Mediated by Perceived Support for Creativity at Work

Variable B on Entry Se B R2 Change p

Mediation Analysis 2
Age .10 .10 .36
Education –.13 .14 .27
Job Status .27 .16 .02
Importance of Creativity –.003 .26 .98
Social Climate .52 .21 .27 .0000
Mediation Analysis 3
Perceived Support for Creativity at Work .46 .08 .19 .0001
Social Climate .42 .22 .15 .0001

Note: Analysis 2 final equation adjusted R2 = .31, F(5,76) = 8.23, p = .0000. Analysis 3 final equation adjusted R2 = .35,
F(6,75) = 8.38, p = .0000.

Table 6. Effects of Environmental Distraction on Job Satisfaction as Mediated by Perceived Support for Creativity
at Work

Variable B on Entry Se B R2 Change p

Mediation Analysis 2
Age .09 .11 .42
Education –.18 .15 .15
Job Status .26 .17 .04
Importance of Creativity –.08 .27 .50
Environmental Distraction –.28 .01 .07 .0246
Mediation Analysis 3
Perceived Support for Creativity at Work .44 .08 .17 .0002
Environmental Distraction –.15 .01 .02 .24

Note: Analysis 2 final equation adjusted R2 = .09, F(5,66) = 2.35, p = .0501. Analysis 3 final equation adjusted R2 = .21,
F(6,65) = 4.09, p = .0015.

Creativity Research Journal 143

D. Stokols, C. Clitheroe, and M. Zmuidzinas

personal stress are summarized in Tables 7a, 7b, and Discussion

7c. The patterns of means shown in these tables illus-
trate that: (a) more favorable social climates are asso- Significant relationships among social climate, lev-
ciated with lower levels of personal stress and greater els of environmental distraction, and employees’ per-
job satisfaction, (b) higher levels of environmental ceived support for creativity at work were found. A
distraction are associated with lower levels of job sat- more positive social climate was associated with
isfaction, and (c) greater perceived support for cre- greater perceived support for creativity at work, and
ativity at work is associated with lower levels of per- high levels of environmental distraction were associ-
sonal stress and higher levels of job satisfaction. ated with less perceived support for creativity at work.
Also, job satisfaction was significantly predicted by
both social climate and levels of environmental distrac-
tion. Finally, perceived support for creativity signifi-
Table 7a. Means for Personal Stress and Job Satisfaction
× More and Less Favorable Social Climate cantly mediated the relationships between social cli-
mate and job satisfaction, social climate and personal
Personal Stress Job Satisfaction stress, and environmental distraction and job satisfac-
Social Climate n M SD M SD
tion. That perceived support for creativity at work was
not a significant mediator of the relationships between
Less Favorable environmental distraction and personal stress may be
Social Climate 46 3.45 .65 3.30 1.17
More Favorable
attributable to the relatively greater influence of non-
Social Climate 44 3.73 .79 4.25 .75 workplace factors on personal stress than on job satis-
faction. That is, perceived support for creativity at work
Note: Larger means indicate lower levels of personal stress and apparently played a less significant role in employees’
higher levels of job satisfaction. Social climate range = 1.38 to 4.00;
median = 3.00. Main effect on personal stress, p < .02 Main effect
appraisals of their “global stress” levels (Cohen et al.,
on job satisfaction, p < .0001. 1983) than in their assessments of job satisfaction.
All of the findings reported here are based on a
series of stepwise regression analyses that were per-
formed according to the criteria for testing relation-
Table 7b. Means for Job Satisfaction × Low and High Levels of ships among predictor, mediator, and outcome vari-
Environmental Distraction ables, as outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). Still,
Job Satisfaction these findings must be characterized as exploratory
and suggestive rather than conclusive, because of a
Environmental Distraction n M SD number of limitations in the research design and scope
Low Distraction 39 3.96 1.11 of this study.
High Distraction 39 3.74 1.04 First, all analyses were based on cross-sectional
Note: Larger means indicate higher levels of job satisfaction. Envi-
rather than longitudinal data. Thus, we cannot infer
ronmental distraction range = –1.99 to 3.75; median = –.16. Main causal relationships among the predictor, mediator,
effect, p < .025. and dependent variables. For instance, the causal

Table 7c. Means for Personal Stress and Job Satisfaction × Low and High Levels of Perceived Support
for Creativity at Work

Personal Stress Job Satisfaction

Perceived Support for Creativity at Work n M SD M SD

Low Support for Creativity 47 3.47 .73 3.37 1.20

High Support for Creativity 46 3.65 .74 4.16 .80

Note: Larger means indicate lower levels of personal stress and higher levels of job satisfaction. Perceived sup-
port for creativity range = 1 to 7; median = 4.42. Main effect on personal stress, p < .002. Main effect on job satisfac-
tion, p < .0001.

144 Creativity Research Journal


direction of the links between environmental distrac-
tion or social climate in the workplace and perceived
support for creativity at work cannot be ascertained
from our data. We do not know whether a more favor-
able social climate promotes a higher level of per-
ceived support for creativity at work, or whether
greater perceived support for creativity engenders a
more positive social climate. With regard to environ-
mental distraction, it would seem more plausible that
high levels of distraction undermine perceived sup-
port for creativity at work, rather than vice versa.
Nonetheless, the cross-sectional nature of our research
design precludes confirmation of the hypothesized
relationships among these variables.
Second, the self-report measures of social climate,
perceived support for creativity at work, personal
stress, and job satisfaction were not cross-validated
by objective or independent subjective indexes of
these constructs. In future studies, observational mea-
sures of supportive relationships among coworkers
and their supervisors, archival records, supervisory
ratings of employees’ innovations at work (cf. Old-
ham & Cummings, 1996), and physiological mea-
sures of stress could be used to reduce the likelihood
of spurious findings based on the use of subjective
independent variables (e.g., perceived social climate
and support for creativity at work) to predict self-
reported outcome measures (e.g., personal stress and
job satisfaction).2
Third, all of the reported links among predictor,
mediator, and outcome variables are based on
employee self-reports or researchers’ observations of
existing conditions in five workplaces. None of the
major variables were intentionally manipulated by
the researchers to evaluate their relationships in a
prospective fashion. In future studies, it would be
most informative to design and implement interven-
tions at the worksite intended to improve social cli-
mate, reduce environmental distraction, and enhance
environmental support for creativity at work.
Prospective evaluations of the effects of such inter-
ventions on employees’ personal stress and job satis-
2
In the UCI Facilities Survey, participants’ heart rate and levels of
systolic and diastolic blood pressure were recorded as objective
indicators of personal stress. However, complete blood pressure and
heart rate data were available for only a few of the 97 participants
who responded to the Creativity Questionnaire.
Creativity Research Journal
Qualities of Work Environments
faction would provide a more direct and conclusive
assessment of the hypotheses examined in this
research.
Fourth, all predictor, mediator, and outcome vari-
ables examined in this study were measured at the
individual level rather than at the group or organiza-
tional level. The small number of organizations (five)
that participated in this study precluded the possibility
of using the work group, company, or department
(rather than individual employees) as the unit of
analysis. On the one hand, the constructs of perceived
support for creativity at work, job satisfaction, and
work-related experiences of stress are most appropri-
ately measured at the individual rather than aggregate
level of analysis. On the other hand, a potential
methodological problem inherent in our analyses of
self-report measures is that the questionnaire
responses of employees from the same work group or
department are often interdependent rather than inde-
pendent. To the extent that high levels of interdepend-
ence prevail among coworkers’ in their responses to
survey items, it is advisable to aggregate their data by
work group, department, or company. Moreover,
some studies of innovation at work have found that
the effects of perceived social climate at work on
employees’ self-ratings of their innovations at work
vary considerably, depending on whether social cli-
mate is measured at the group or individual level
(Bunce & West, 1995). Future evaluations of the rela-
tionships among the predictor, mediator, and outcome
variables examined in this study should compare indi-
vidual- and group-level measures and analyses of
these constructs.
Fifth, all of the participants in this study were
full-time supervisory and staff-level office workers
rather than blue collar employees within manufactur-
ing settings or mobile worksites (e.g., vehicle opera-
tors and other nonoffice service workers). The gen-
eralizability of the reported links from offices to
nonoffice worksites and blue collar employees
remains as an important issue for future research on
environmental predictors of perceived support for
creativity and innovation in the workplace.
These limitations notwithstanding, this study sug-
gested that physical and social features of work envi-
ronments do influence employees’ perceptions and
experiences of creativity, and established a basis for
future longitudinal studies designed to replicate and
extend the cross-sectional relationships reported here.
145
D. Stokols, C. Clitheroe, and M. Zmuidzinas
Several authors have emphasized the importance of
giving greater scientific attention to the joint influence
of environmental and personal factors on creativity
and innovation in work environments, as well as in
other settings (Amabile, 1988; Clitheroe, 2000;
Runco, 1995; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). This study
suggests new avenues for future research on creativity
research by (a) offering new measures of employees’
subjective experiences of creativity and perceived
support for creativity at work, (b) indicating some of
the ways both subjective and objective features of
work environments (social climate and distraction)
may influence perceptions of support for creativity at
work, and (c) providing preliminary evidence that
employees’ perceptions of support for creativity at
work are closely linked to reported levels of job satis-
faction and stress.
References
Albert, R. S. (1983). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. In
R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence: The social psychol-
ogy of creativity and exceptional achievement (pp. 57–72).
New York: Pergamon.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in
organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variables
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resis-
tance, and mortality: A nine-year follow-up study of Alameda
County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109,
186–204.
Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1995). Self perceptions and perceptions
of group climate as predictors of individual innovation at work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44, 199–215.
Clitheroe, C. (2000). Mapping the creative context of architects.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Irvine.
Cohen, S., Evans, G. W., Stokols, D., & Krantz, D. S. (1986).
Behavior, health and environmental stress. New York: Plenum.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global mea-
sure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behav-
ior, 24, 385–396.
Cohen, S., & Syme, S. L. (Eds.). (1985). Social support and health.
Orlando, FL: Academic.
146
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). The measurement of creativity. In M. A.
Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 199–242). Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multi-
ple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21,
1112–1142.
Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress. New York:
Academic.
Glynn, M. A. (1996) Innovative genius: A framework for relating
individual and organizational intelligences to innovation.
Academy of Management Review, 21, 1081–1111.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.),
Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 142–161). New York:
Harper & Row.
Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1990). Life stressors, resistance fac-
tors, and improved psychological functioning. An extension of
the stress-resistance paradigm. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 909–917.
Lasswell, H. D. (1959). The social setting of creativity. In H. H.
Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 203–221).
New York: Harper & Row.
Levi, L. (1992). Psychosocial, occupational, environmental, and
health concepts; research results; and applications. In G. P.
Keita & S. L. Sauter (Eds.), Work and well-being: An agenda
for the 1990s (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Maslow, A. H. (1959). Creativity in self-actualizing people. In H. H.
Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 83–95).
New York: Harper & Row.
Mead, M. (1959). Creativity in cross-cultural perspective. In H. H.
Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 222–235).
New York: Harper & Row.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Social ecological perspectives on health. In
G. C. Stone, F. Cohen, & N. E. Adler (Eds.), Health psychol-
ogy: A handbook (pp. 523–547). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moos, R. H. (1986). Work as a human context. In M. S. Pallak &
R. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change,
and employment (pp. 9–52). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome:
Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bul-
letin, 103, 27–43.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Per-
sonal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 607–634.
Rogers, C. R. (1959). Toward a theory of creativity. In H. H. Ander-
son (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 69–82). New
York: Harper & Row.
Runco, M. (1995). The creativity and job satisfaction of artists in
organizations. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 39–45.
Sherrod, D. (1974). Crowding, perceived control and behavioral
aftereffects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4,
171–186.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity.
American Psychologist, 51, 677–688.
Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environ-
ments: Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American
Psychologist, 47, 6–22.
Creativity Research Journal

Stokols, D., Churchman, A., Scharf, T., & Wright, S. (1990). Work-
ers’ experiences of environmental change and transition at the
office. In S. Fisher & C. Cooper (Eds.), On the move: The psy-
chological effects of change and transition (pp. 231–249).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Stokols, D., & Scharf, T. (1990). Developing standardized tools for
assessing employees’ ratings of facility performance. In
G. Davis & F. Ventre (Eds.), Performance of buildings and ser-
viceability of facilities, ASTM STP 1029 (pp. 55–79). Philadel-
phia: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Creativity Research Journal
Qualities of Work Environments
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (Eds.). (1990). Innovation and creativity
at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chich-
ester, England: Wiley.
Witt, L. A., & Boerkem, M. N. (1989). Climate for creative pro-
ductivity as a predictor of research usefulness and organiza-
tional effectiveness in an R&D organization. Creativity
Research Journal, 2, 30–40.
147